Sissela Bok uses "Aggression: The Impact of Media Violence" to educate on the negative correlations media violence has on anyone exposed to it. Bok claims the violent media exposure, especially amongst the young, makes us fearful, numb to violence and wanting more violence with a set of aggressive impulses that would not be present without such media. Within the first paragraph I start to doubt Bok as a believable writer. Her statements like "the widespread belief persists that it glamorizes aggressive conduct, removes inhibitions towards such conduct, arouses viewers, and invites imitation" aren't credible because there are no sources backing up this claim and she is assuming the reader is not thinking critically. Perhaps this is why the rest of her piece is written in paragraphs that begin with an inflammatory tone on the argument against violent media followed by the undermining of her arguement through inadequate supporting evidence. Bok states her awareness of these inadequacies which makes her point unclear one way from the other. When Bok does provide a background for her assertions they are either a second hand anectdote, such as John Grisham's proposed legal action, or a seriously weak inductive reasoning, such as the tying of unrelated links between smoking and cancer as well as drinking and driving to aggression and media. By that line of reasoning you could argue anything.
Is television responsible for society's changing morals or is it merely a reflection of these changes?
Kristi and I both found that, when we read the essay, the author might not be saying that violence is the cause of violence in society, but rather, there isn't enough data or information to make such statements, which many people do. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI agreed with you right up until the last paragraph where I felt she did make a strong statement about the effect of media on young viewers. In light of this and the opening statement I feel it is fair she was trying to make that point, she just did it ineffectively.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that television is responsible for society's changing morals. Generally what is put on the TV is what people want to watch, it is not to convince us of a certain morality. More often than not it is parents who teach their children morals; some choose to let the television teach these morals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on Bok's examples not being adequate ones, she could have used better statements. I don't believe television is responsible for morals because we all don't have to watch it. It's someone's choice in the household to buy it each month, as well as what programs get to be watched - Ashley Drew
ReplyDeleteGood observation that Bok doesn't seem to cite some of her information. I wonder if some of these citations were dropped when this article was taken from her book? If we accessed her book would we find lengthy footnotes at the end?
ReplyDelete